They aren't panicking. They're laughing, because they have complete control.

Trump should shutdown his twitter account. Tell everyone he is moving to a different platform like gab.

1. Jan 6th 2021 - 6:01:04 PM EST "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!" 2. Jan 6th 2021 - 4:17:24 PM EST https://t.co/Pm2PKV0Fp3 (video calling for people to be peaceful and go home) source : https://www.thetrumparchive.com/

Panic? Nigger, they're in control of everything.

QAnon post 4414: (June 4, 2020) [RED1]: POTUS Twitter removal

Trump should switch to Gap and others long time ago, Fuck twitter

Oh, just you wait. He'll be banned from every website larger than 300 users. He'll be silenced from every platform. He'll be turned away by every bank. He'll be denied every service. As soon as this man isn't president, the kikes are going to *destroy him*, and make sure he never has a public voice ever again. He's going to be penniless and destitute in 6 months and nobody will ever hear his pleas.

>support our ZOGbots as they murder White females in cold blood for stepping foot on her own property If it were ever necessary to carry a rifle in public my sights would be on Trump. >hurrrrr fed ____ >[The true threat doctrine was established in the 1969 Supreme Court case Watts v. United States. In that case, an eighteen-year-old male was convicted in a Washington, D.C. District Court for violating a statute prohibiting persons from knowingly and willfully making threats to harm or kill the President of the United States. The conviction was based on a statement made by Watts, in which he said, "[i]f they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J." Watts appealed, leading to the Supreme Court finding the statute constitutional on its face, but reversing the conviction of Watts. In reviewing the lower court's analysis of the case, the Court noted that "a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech." The Court recognized that "uninhibited, robust, and wideopen" political debate can at times be characterized by "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." In light of the context of Watts' statement - and the laughter that it received from the crowd - the Court found that it was more "a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President" than a "true threat." In so holding, the Court established that there is a "true threat" exception to protected speech, but also that the statement must be viewed in its context and distinguished from protected hyperbole. The opinion, however, stopped short of defining precisely what constituted a "true threat." ](https://archive.md/zCQfy)

What a faggot.